New study gives Congress a road map to fix Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on February 17, 2025

As Social Security celebrates its 90^th anniversary on Aug. 14, 2025, this essential retirement program has long been facing a significant long-term financing gap. According to the 2024 Social Security trustees report, unless Congress acts the trust funds will be depleted by 2035, forcing the program to reduce benefits by 17%.

With over 70 million retirees and individuals with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits, it is time for Congress to get serious about hammering out a viable bipartisan solution to resolving Social Security’s funding gap. And a recently released report provides the groundwork for a policy that a partisan Congress might just consider.

Last month, the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) released the results of a qualitative analysis study, on Jan. 29, 2025, detailing American views on Social Security, a federal “social safety net” program that provides income to people who are retired, disabled, or have dependents, helping them to plan for retirement and other life events.

The new, recently released, 72-page report, entitled, Social Security at 90: A Bipartisan Roadmap for the Program’s Future, is a must read for the White House and Congressional lawmakers as they begin to debate specific policies that would make long-term fixes to ensure the long-term solvency of the America’s retirement program.

The NASI survey, fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonprofit research organization, surveyed 2,243 Americans ages 21 and over.

Unlike most public opinion research on Social Security, which asks about each policy option individually, NASI says that this survey, conducted in partnership with the Washington, DC-based Greenwald Research, a firm having extensive experience in public opinion and consumer preference research, features a unique trade-off analysis that examine which combination of product features – or in this case policy changes- that consumers prefer and are willing to pay for.

The study’s findings are also largely consistent with previous NASI 2012 and 2014 studies, Strengthening Social Security: What Do American’s Want? and Americans Make Hard Choices: A Survey with Trade-off Analysis.

Sending a clear message to Washington

The NASI study’s findings indicate that Americans (across party lines, generations, income and education), strongly support Social Security and see it as the lynchpin for retirement security. Only four percent state that they do not consider it to be an important income to draw on during retirement.

Rather than ensuring the solvency of Social Security through cutting benefits, the survey respondents strongly support strengthening the program’s finances by raising revenues, noting the study’s findings. Eighty-five percent of the respondents call for benefits not being reduced, even if this means raising taxes on some or all Americans.

According to the survey’s findings, the most strongly favored option is eliminating the cap on payroll tax contributions for those earning more than $400,000 per year and their employers, who would contribute to Social Security via payroll taxes on wages above that amount. Those affected would not receive additional benefits.

Additionally, respondents across all groups, including a majority of Republicans, say they are willing to pay more themselves by gradually increasing the payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 7.2 percent, to strengthen the program’s finances. Workers earning less than $50,000 per year would not take financial hits. They would only contribute an additional $42 per month.

Don’t touch our benefits!

Given a broad set of policy options available to address Social Security’s financing gap, the respondents also reject benefit reductions such as keeping the full retirement age at 67 instead of further raising. Those surveyed also called for adjusting the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to more accurately reflect inflation and spending habits of older adults.

The NASI study also found that Americans want to strengthen Social Security benefits by adding a caregiver credit for workers who take time out of the workforce to care for young children and a “bridge benefit” to protect from the early claiming reduction of those in physically demanding jobs who may be unable to continue working up to full retirement age.

Finally, the study’s findings indicate that overwhelming majority of Americans (90 percent) see the need and valuable of Social Security’s disability benefits, too. These respondents say that they will need Social Security’s disability benefits if they become disabled and unable to support themselves through work, and only four percent support cutting disability benefits. The survey also finds strong bipartisan support for updating outdated rules in Supplemental Security Income, including its $2,000 asset limit.

Statements from NASI and core partners

“At a time when our country is deeply divided, Social Security remains a powerful unifying force,” said Rebecca Vallas, NASI’s Chief Executive Officer. “This survey shows there is strong bipartisan agreement on how the American people want to secure the program’s future, and we urge policymakers to listen,” she says.

“It is rare in today’s political climate to see people unite around anything,” adds AARP Chief Public Policy Officer Deb Whitman, noting that all Americans want their Social Security benefits to be preserved. They are willing to do what it takes to ensure the program continues to provide meaningful support for future generations, she says.

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement security in the United States. This report clearly indicates both the important role that Social Security plays as a source of retirement income for older Americans as well as the priority the American people place on resolving the financing gap so that benefits are not cut indiscriminately,” said Tyler Bond, NIRS’s Research Director. “This research continues a long history of finding strong support for Social Security among the public,” he says.

Finally, stated: “These survey results show that Americans value Social Security and their private sector retirement benefits because they were unwilling to cut those benefits to finance Social Security,” says Chantel Sheaks, USCC’s Vice President of Retirement Policy. “Americans think of these together, and policymakers should as well,” he suggests.

Adding their two cents

“This survey shows that Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike — absolutely do not want to see cuts to Social Security’s modest benefits,” says Nancy Altman, President of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works.

“Instead, they want the wealthy to finally start contributing their fair share. If necessary, they are even willing to pay more themselves. Any DC politician who supports benefit cuts is wildly out of step with the American people,” she notes.

“While the study’s findings are consistent with other major surveys on Social Security during the previous years, it is remarkable that despite the current tumultuous political environment, American voters have a deep emotional bond with the program and want to ensure that Congress protects and improves their benefits without cutting them,” says Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The NASI poll sends a strong signal to members of Congress that they should support legislation, like Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s Social Security 2100 Act, that would extend solvency and improve benefits by having the wealthy pay their fair share of payroll taxes,” says Adcock.

In one of President Trump’s rolling press conferences, he touched upon Social Security saying there were no cuts being proposed – if anything he would make the program stronger.

Social Security and the Ocean State

In 2022, there were more than 233,000 Social Security beneficiaries in Rhode Island, including more than 172,000 retirees, 32,000 disabled workers, and almost 14,000 children,” says NIRS’s Tyler Bond, noting that all of these Rhode Islanders face the prospect of an indiscriminate benefit cut in a decade unless Congress acts to shore up Social Security’s financing.

“This report has one clear takeaway: the American people do not want Social Security benefit cuts, and they are willing to pay more themselves to avoid those potential benefit cuts,” adds Bond.

In conclusion, the NASI report cites 84-year-old Elizabeth R. Virginia, about her personal views on America’s retirement program. “Social Security is one of the most dependable things that we have. You know that it will come again at the same time. Right now, I know the second day of every month, it is there,” she says.

As Virginia knows, she can count on receiving her monthly Social Security check. The program has never missed a payment in nine decades. Congress must now work together to ensure that this never will happen.

For a copy of NASI’s Social Security report, go to www.nasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NASI_SocialSecurityat90.pdf

For copy of NASI’s issue brief, “America’s View on Social Security,” go to www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FINAL-Views-on-SS-July-2024.pdf/

For statistics on RI Social Security beneficiaries, go to Source for RI statistics, go to www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_zip/2022/ri.pdf.

Trump’s Campaign Pledges Could impact Social Security’s Financial Stability

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on November 4, 2024

When voters go to the polls on Tuesday, they should know that Social Security will only be nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office. According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law calls for a 23 percent cut in Social Security reductions in fiscal year 2034. Restoring solvency in the retirement program over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent, says CBO.

As the presidential campaign winds down, with voting taking place on Nov. 4, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris calls for protecting and expanding Social Security while former President Trump says would “fight for and protect Social Security.” But both candidates don’t provide a specific detail plan as to how to fix the financially ailing Social Security program, despite the looming $16,500 cut facing a typical couple retiring just before the projected insolvency.

But campaign promises, if enacted, can have a devastating impact on the Social Security Programs ability to pay all future benefits.

Analysis Shows Campaign Promises Weaken Social Security

A new report, “What Would the Trump Campaign’s Mean for Social Security,” released by US Budget Watch 2024, a project the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), details how former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, if enacted, would advance Social Security’s insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031 – hastening the next President’s insolvency timeline by one-third. CRFB is a non-partisan government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that analyses the fiscal impact of federal budget and fiscal issues.

According to CRFB’s new report, released on Oct. 21, 2024, Trump campaign pledges would weaken Social Security’s financial stability by ending taxation of Social Security benefits. This would eliminate a revenue stream currently used to help finance Social Security. If enacted, the analysis notes that Trump’s plans would increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through FY 2035. Additionally, ending all taxes on overtime pay and tips, would also reduce the payroll taxes accruing to the Social Security trust funds.

CRFB’s analysis also predicted that Trump’s policies would worsen Social Security’s finances by increasing Social Security’s annual shortfall by roughly 50 percentin FY 2035, from 3.6 to 4 percent of payroll.

Trump’s calls for large tariffs on imports, which would either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll would impact the financial viability of the Social Security program. Enhancing boarder security and deporting unauthorized immigrants would reduce the number of immigrant workers paying into the Social Security Trust funds.

CRFB also questions whether Trump’s fixes would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfalls.

From the Sideline…

According to Aimee Picchi is associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, the personal finance website received a statement from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt disputing the CRFB analysis: “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” she said.

Additionally, Leavitt told CBS Money Watch that Trump’s plans for “unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies” would put Social Security “on a stronger footing for generations to come.”

“President Trump has said he would close Social Security’s long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy. However, we’ve shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security – even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We’ve also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security’s existing long-term funding gap,” says CRFB’s analysis. .

“Faster growth can reduce Social Security’s shortfall [says Trump]. But based on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term out-put long-term output,” adds CRFB.

Responding to CRFB’s analysis, in a statement Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello said: “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail.

Expand Social Security Caucus House Co-Chairs Reps. John B. Larso (D -CT), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Debbie Dingell (D – MI) )call Trump’s campaign pledges “a no starter.” If implemented, they would eliminate revenue streams used to help finance Social Security and accelerate the depletion of Social Security funding,” they say.

“Maintaining the solvency of Social Security is vital for promoting economic security, and a moral obligation to honor the commitments made to those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives. To safeguard the future of Social Security, we cannot allow for Trump’s policies to gut these hard-earned benefits and instead must engage in a simple reform like the Social Security 2100 Act that fixes insolvency by having the wealthy pay into the system the same as everyone else,” note the Co-Chairs.

And Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, gives his thought’s to Trump’s campaign pledges: “We oppose his proposal to eliminate the taxes on benefits that help to fund the system, and any other measure that would deprive Social Security of much needed revenue,” he says.

“Once again, Trump postures as a friend of the working class, then puts forward plans that endanger the benefits working people have earned — and depend on in retirement. It is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to advocate plans that would hasten the depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves, triggering an even larger automatic benefit cut if that happens,” adds Richtman.

According to Richtman, Trump’s plans reveal his “overall recklessness” with Social Security. “He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid — and hoped it would be eliminated. His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars. He said earlier this year that he was ‘open’ to ‘cutting entitlements,’ then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme,” he adds.

“Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering – or caring about – the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors,” charges Richtman.

Looking Back on Efforts to Fix Social Security

“The history and reasoning in both Congress and the White House on protecting Social Security is still important and persuasive– as it was to President Obama, and House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid,” says Robert Weiner, former chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and later a White House senior staffer

“The great Claude Pepper helped forge the Reagan-O’Neill-Pepper deal of 1983 that stopped cuts and even partial insolvency through 2034,” says Weiner, noting that he remembers Pepper saying “over my dead body” to cabinet officers and congressional leaders who wanted to impose severe cuts.

Weiner noted that Nancy Pelosi said “First, do no harm” to the would-be cutters right through all the years of her Speakership and leadership. “’We did that’ to stopping the Social Security cutters, she told Weiner.

Senate Leader Harry Reid’s staff removed the term ‘reform’ from his Social Security talking points when they were given the documents and realized that the program has a surplus, not a deficit,” noted Weiner. “These great leaders knew that Social Security ‘reform’ meant cuts, breaking Social Security’s promise to American seniors, and that the deficit was a myth and excuse to take from the program and its two-trillion-plus dollar surplus,” he said.

“And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told me that congressional leaders knew that, if necessary, if the time comes, and it’s not now, a slight tweak by Congress to raise the income level for tax payments could fix it, if necessary, if the growing economy hadn’t already maintained full solvency,” says Weiner.

“Let’s hope this kind of sanity and sensitivity continues to prevail,” Weiner concludes.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security

Next November, Let Seniors Vote on Social Security Fixes

Published in RINewsToday on May 13, 2024

By Herb Weiss

The recently released 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report shows an improved outlook for these programs. This year’s projections show that Social Security can pay its benefits and cover administrative costs now until 2035, one year longer than projected in last year’s report. But, after that, it can only cover 83 percent of benefits, even if Congress fails to take no action to fix the program to ensure its financial viability.

Medicare’s fiscal health improves even more, says the Medicare Trustees Report. It projects that the program’s Part A (Hospital) fund will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2036 — a full five years later than estimated by the trustees last year.

Under the Social Security Act of 1935, the Board of Trustees is required to submit the annual reports on the current and projected financial status of the trust funds to Congress on April 1 each year.

It’s Time for Congress to Protect Social Security

“This year’s report is a measure of good news,” says Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a statement recognizing the impact of “strong economic that have yielded impressive wage growth, historic job creation and a steady, low unemployment rate.”

“So long as Americans across our country continue to work, Social Security can — and will — continue to pay benefits,” says O’Malley, calling on Congress to take action to ensure the financial viability of the Trust Fund “into the foreseeable future just as it did I the past on a bipartisan basis.”

“I will continue to urge Congress to protect and support Social Security and restore the growth of the funds. Whether Congress chooses to eliminate the shortfall by increasing revenue, reducing benefits, or some combination, is a matter of political preference, not affordability,” observes O’Malley, noting that there are several legislative proposals that address the shortfall without benefit cuts — it should debate and vote on these and any other proposals.

Social Security Advocacy Groups. Key GOP Lawmaker Issue Statements

With the May 6 release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, statements were generated by Social Security advocacy groups and Congressional lawmakers to give their take on the projections.

Even with the report pushing back the expected depletion dates for Social Security and Medicare, Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare (NCPSSM) called for Congress to immediately act to strengthen the Social Security program for the 67 million beneficiaries. “We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983. The sooner Congress acts, the less painful the remedies will be, says Richtman.

In responding to comments that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt, Richtman says: “Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers’ payroll contributions, so the program will never be ‘broke.’ But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly. A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.”

Richtman warns that seniors will take a devastating financial hit if Congress is forced to make cuts in 2035. “Average Social Security benefits are already very modest — about $23,000 per year, which is only $3,000 higher than the federal poverty line for a household of two,” he says, noting that wealthier beneficiaries can afford to contribute more to the program without hurting them financially.

“Social Security has an accumulated surplus of $2.79 trillion. It is 90 percent funded for the next quarter century, 83 percent for the next half century, and 81 percent for the next three quarters of a century. At the end of the century, in 2100,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, noting that the program is projected to cost just 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (“GDP”).

Like the SSA Commissioner and NCPSSM’s Richtman, and Altman urges Congress to act sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security’s modest benefits. “That will restore one of the most important benefits Social Security is intended to provide to the American people — a sense of security,” she says.

As to Medicare, the released report notes the life expectancy for Medicare part A Trust Fund is extended another five years.

“It’s great news that the Part A trust fund has an additional FIVE years before it becomes depleted, partly because of the unexpected strength of the U.S. economy.  But current and future seniors expect action to keep the trust fund solvent for the long-term,” said Richtman.

“We support President Biden’s plan to strengthen Medicare’s finances, as laid out in his FY 2024 and 2025 budgets,” says Richtman, noting that the president’s plan would bring more revenue into the program, rather than cutting benefits as some Republicans have proposed.  “Building on the prescription drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act, the President’s budget proposal would lower Medicare’s costs — and some of those savings would be used to extend the solvency of the Part A trust fund,” he says.

According to Richtman, beyond trust fund solvency, the Trustees reported that the standard Medicare Part B premium will rise next year to $185 per month – a $20 or 6 percent monthly increase. “Any premium increase is a burden to seniors living on fixed incomes, who too often must choose between paying monthly bills or filling prescriptions and getting proper health care. Seniors need relief from rising premiums and skyrocketing out-of-pocket health care costs. Fortunately, the Biden administration is taking steps to reduce those costs,” said Richtman.

Key GOP Chair  Responds to Trustee Reports

Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), of the House Budget Committee, quickly released a statement, responding to the release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report.

According to Arrington, the House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget, while not making any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits, provides a way to prod Congress and the President to address the fiscal insolvency of these programs. The Budget Committee has also reported the Fiscal Commission Act, which will also give Congress the tools it needs to save and strengthen these vital programs,” he noted.

“We have the highest levels of indebtedness in our nation’s history, an inflationary and anemic economy, and the two most important senior safety net programs facing insolvency, says Arrington, noting that this year’s trustees report “only reiterates why we need a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to address the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the $140 trillion unfunded liability on America’s balance sheet.”

“Republicans and Democrats have both proven they will not fix Social Security and Medicare on their own. We must put our seniors and country first and work together to find a solution,” he charges. “Doing nothing is condemning our seniors to automatic benefit cuts and our country to a future debt crisis,” he says.

Fixing Social Security…A Difference in Perspective.

Both NCPSSM and Social Security Works strongly endorse financially shoring up Social Security by bringing in more money into the trust fund by increasing the payroll wage-cap to require higher-income beneficiaries to pay a higher Social Security payroll tax. Both Social Security advocacy groups endorse Rep. John Larson’s (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act, a legislative proposal would maintain the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well — and dedicating some of high-earners’ investment income to Social Security.

On the other hand, Republican lawmakers call for cutting earned benefits of younger workers by raising the full-retirement age, means-testing, and replacing the exiting COLA (CPI-W with the Chained CPI-U) that would result in a lower COLA over time. Also, no COLA’s would be provided to high income earners.

Social Security is considered the third rail a nation’s politics.  Political pundits say that contact with the rail is like touching this high-voltage rail that can result in “political suicide.”  That is why the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee has proposed to create a fiscal commission to give lawmakers political cover to enact the cuts without having to vote on the record.

Over two months ago, the most recent budget hammered out by the Republican Study Committee, endorsed by 80 percent of the House Republicans, calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security in just the next ten years., including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug costs, repealing a $ 35 insulin, and $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Additionally, the House GOP budget transitions Medicare to a premium support system that the Congressional Budget Office has found would raises premiums for many seniors.  Finally, it calls for cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $ 4.5 trillion over ten years, taking health care  coverage away from millions of people.

While President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential candidate, has previous said he wouldn’t make cuts to Social Security, recent interviews reveal a change.  According to a March 11, 2024 web posting by CNN’s Kate Sullivan and Tami Luhby, former President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, “suggested[ in a CNBC interview] he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue.”

At the Polls

Legislative proposals to fix the ailing Social Security and Medicare programs are different as night and day. Rather than to  continue to debate the fine points, let’s put the differing policies on the ballot. With just 177 days left before the upcoming November presidential election, Congress must vote on Democratic and Republican legislative proposals, detailing differing provisions as to how these programs can increase the financial stability of these programs. Larson has already thrown his legislative proposal into the hopper, but it won’t see the light of day with a GOP controlled House.

Last year, 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits.  This year’s Trustee’s report must send a clear message to these beneficiaries that how Congress acts during the next decade will either make or break the Social Security program.

So, now House Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-La) and Senate President Charles E. Schumer (D- NY) must allow a vote on both Republican and Democratic legislative proposals in their respective chambers.  Let Senate and House lawmakers go on the record and publicly be tied to a vote as to which legislative political strategy they endorse to financially shore up Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, this can give voters a score card. And if this political issue is as important to them as the economy, abortion, and immigration, they can decide at the ballot box who they should bring back to Capitol Hill.

That’s the American way to do it.